Scholarlink

Background <p>This study aimed to determine whether a distance-based CPR training program with asynchronous feedback for laypersons is non-inferior to the traditional in-person Heartsaver® First Aid CPR AED course.</p> Methods <p>After approval by the ethics committee, 192 non-medical personnel were recruited to participate in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to two different training methods:</p> <p><UnorderedList Mark="Dash"><ItemContent><p>Traditional in-person Heartsaver® First Aid CPR AED course (T-course).</p></ItemContent><ItemContent><p>Distance-based course offering asynchronous feedback through an online platform (D-course).</p></ItemContent></UnorderedList></p> <p>For the distance-based course, materials for practice were available at the participants' workplace (pad, resuscitation torso, an automated external defibrillator). The video-based assessment and feedback platform C1DO1 was used (<a href="https://c1do1.ai/">https://c1do1.ai/</a>). The course was structured in 9 stages on the platform, with theoretical and practical steps. Participants reviewed the videos and practiced unsupervised, uploading video recordings of their practice, and instructors assessed and provided feedback asynchronously on these videos. Participants then reviewed their own videos with the feedback and practiced again until approval.</p> <p>Both groups completed a pre-training (PRE) and post-training assessment (POST). During both assessments, participants were recorded performing CPR. Videos were evaluated by two independent, blinded reviewers who rated participants’ performance using the AHA Heartsaver Adult CPR and AED skills testing checklist. Additionally, the quality of chest compressions (CC) was measured with the Prestan simulator application.</p> Results <p>Of the 192 participants recruited, 172 completed the training, and 158 took the PRE and POST assessments. (83 finished the T-course and 75 the D-course).</p> <p>Median Heartsaver Adult CPR and AED skills testing checklist scores increased from 2 (0–3) to 15 (14–16.5) points in the T-course and from 1 (0–2.5) to 16 (15.5–17) points in the D-course. The difference in POST assessment median scores between groups was -1 (95% CI: [-1.5, -0.5]), with the lower bound above the pre-established non-inferiority margin, confirming the non-inferiority of the D-course.</p> <p>The median CC rate increased from 82 (0–106)/min to 105 (102–110)/min in the T-course and from 86 (0–109.5)/min to 105 (105–108)/min in the D-course. The median CC depth rose from 38 (0–57.5) mm to 58 (49.5–60) mm in the T-course and from 32 (0–56) mm to 59 (55–60) mm in the D-course.</p> Conclusions <p>Both training programs significantly improve participants’ proficiency in CPR. The distance-based course with asynchronous platform feedback was non-inferior to the traditional Heartsaver® First Aid CPR AED course.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Development and validation of a distance-based training program of basic cardiac life support for laypersons and comparison with traditional in-person methodology: a non-inferiority study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月3日

查看全文
  • Marcia Corvetto,
  • David Acuña,
  • Andrés Schneider,
  • Jerónimo Rojas,
  • Julián Varas,
  • Elga Zamorano,
  • Fernando Altermatt

摘要

Background

This study aimed to determine whether a distance-based CPR training program with asynchronous feedback for laypersons is non-inferior to the traditional in-person Heartsaver® First Aid CPR AED course.

Methods

After approval by the ethics committee, 192 non-medical personnel were recruited to participate in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to two different training methods:

Traditional in-person Heartsaver® First Aid CPR AED course (T-course).

Distance-based course offering asynchronous feedback through an online platform (D-course).

For the distance-based course, materials for practice were available at the participants' workplace (pad, resuscitation torso, an automated external defibrillator). The video-based assessment and feedback platform C1DO1 was used (https://c1do1.ai/). The course was structured in 9 stages on the platform, with theoretical and practical steps. Participants reviewed the videos and practiced unsupervised, uploading video recordings of their practice, and instructors assessed and provided feedback asynchronously on these videos. Participants then reviewed their own videos with the feedback and practiced again until approval.

Both groups completed a pre-training (PRE) and post-training assessment (POST). During both assessments, participants were recorded performing CPR. Videos were evaluated by two independent, blinded reviewers who rated participants’ performance using the AHA Heartsaver Adult CPR and AED skills testing checklist. Additionally, the quality of chest compressions (CC) was measured with the Prestan simulator application.

Results

Of the 192 participants recruited, 172 completed the training, and 158 took the PRE and POST assessments. (83 finished the T-course and 75 the D-course).

Median Heartsaver Adult CPR and AED skills testing checklist scores increased from 2 (0–3) to 15 (14–16.5) points in the T-course and from 1 (0–2.5) to 16 (15.5–17) points in the D-course. The difference in POST assessment median scores between groups was -1 (95% CI: [-1.5, -0.5]), with the lower bound above the pre-established non-inferiority margin, confirming the non-inferiority of the D-course.

The median CC rate increased from 82 (0–106)/min to 105 (102–110)/min in the T-course and from 86 (0–109.5)/min to 105 (105–108)/min in the D-course. The median CC depth rose from 38 (0–57.5) mm to 58 (49.5–60) mm in the T-course and from 32 (0–56) mm to 59 (55–60) mm in the D-course.

Conclusions

Both training programs significantly improve participants’ proficiency in CPR. The distance-based course with asynchronous platform feedback was non-inferior to the traditional Heartsaver® First Aid CPR AED course.